AF-XIED Beta for Husqvarna TR650

[drzcharlie]

I received my XIED this morning and installed it but due to time constraints my initial ride was only about 15 miles. I did the installation of the BETA unit on the TR within a half hour of receiving it and it was a very simple install.

Having read the XIED thread I expect the idle as all over the place until the ECU started to learn and I wasn't disappointed. The exhaust sounded deeper, richer upon starting the bike for the first time. Upon completion of the installation I immediately I suited up and went for a brief ride. My first impression is a very positive one. (Note* that Roger04rt (supplier) told me to keep my Eruption modded AIT in the bike).

Some of my initial observations were:

1. The off idle stumble seems to have abated after a short while, it will take several cold starts to determine if it is gone
2. The exhaust note is deeper and throatier
3. Throttle response is so much better that it seems like a different bike
4. Throttle is linear from 1st to 5th gear without dead spots
5. The bike has a crisp response to the throttle but not harsh. It was jerky and sometimes unmetered before the install.
6. Decel pop is completely gone (totally).
7. The bike starts easier (mine had a slight hesitation in starting cold)
8. Acceleration is amazing and I even popped an unintended 3rd gear wheelie
9. On deceleration the engine braking is more linear where it had been immediate and very sudden and harsh prior to the installation
10. Idle is 100 rpm faster than stock.

I verified the F7 setting which is an AFR setting of 14.15+/=0.15 and running 4% richer. You get flashing LED's to verify your settings. It comes from Roger set at F7. He recommends running a tank at F7, F8 then F6 to compare settings and feel differences in the bikes overall performance.

Tomorrow barring honey-do's I will fill up and run a tank of gas through it.

More later with pictures

 

[Slowflyer]

I installed a BMW F800 unit on my Terra about 8 weeks ago. Unfortunately a five week holiday riding an F700 through the Andes and now modifying the air box and installing a Staintune etc has prevented me from riding it much. That said, I agree, the installation was easy, I did notice an almost immediate improvement to the previous stalling and hesitation but I didn't experience any idle issues. One issue was where to place the control unit. The way the cable joins the control unit makes it a bit of a challenge.

Hopefully, I will have the bike back on the road this weekend but I will not be able to give much of an evaluation since I have changed three parameters affecting fuelling at virtually the same time. Doh****************************************!

 

[isldtime]

Keep the reports coming in !
You touched on a couple of areas that I thought needed improvement.

 

[drzcharlie]

Alright here are the pictures of the unit and installation.

Documentation and instructions.

Controller

This is the harness plug that you connect the device to Found on the left side between the frame and the motor

You disconnect the O2 sensor and plug the device into the male and female OEM plugs

Route the devices wiring so it is out of the way

Find a location for the device under the seat or?

And connect the brown wire (ground) to the bikes battery on the negative terminal

Go ride!

 

[Quirky]

Geez Slowflyer that holiday sounds really unfortunate.

My TPS reset turned my early af-xied findings and knowledge back to starting over.
Just a thought for you and some theories for sharing.
My poor fuel consumption and having a top speed of 163km/hr came from setting #7 Staintune BB restricter removed. In theory, with the restricter removed it could cause exhaust gas reversion in the pipe. This messes with the lambda inputs into the ecu. (In theory I believe I've had this happen with my r1200gs)
I'm not sure with the TR yet.

Setting #3 with the restricter fitted yielded similar fuel consumption figures to the other bikes on the trip. A little less low to mid grunt and even just a bit more subtle engine brake fluffing.The bike pulled pretty hard and easily up to 168km/hr, before I just had to back off. This may support that the changes to the ecu fuel tables may have negative effects for the high rpm range.

More riding needed from now on, with single changes only for now on. First up I will return to setting #7.

I don't have a regular routine to diagnose this properly. Some times I just must behave, sometimes it's just a doddle and sometimes I get to be an absolute hooligan. People who do regular commutes would be the best judges, IMO.

Cheers,

Q

 

[Quirky]

Done a loop this afternoon.
Restricter fitted, AF Xied setting #7 tanks full to the brim.
170km then topped the tanks off again with 9.6 litres of Caltex's finest.
17.71km/litre
At this stage, I think that previous #3 setting over all was better for both power and economy.
Pretty poor numbers for a 650 but I know how bad this number can get on setting #7 with the restricter left out with some higher speeds. 15km/litre and worse.

My current plan will be to do this same loop in another fortnight, maybe setting #3 without the restricter because I pulled the restricter on the way home and it instantly feels more exciting to ride. It could be the noise, but it seems to spin up quicker and just pull harder from low to mid RPM.

 

[drzcharlie]

Regarding an F3 setting

Isn't that 4% richer than the stock setting? Or, is my math flawed? I ask because looking at the AFR settings that are available F1 is 14.7:1 this would make an F3 setting about 14.135:1 If that is the case then the eruption mod was nearly dead on. It was "learned out" (compensated for) by the ECU eventually (3K miles). Which would lead me to conclude that this unit may be "learned out" eventually.

Before you electronic wizards berate me for being an ignorant hick from Arkansas I can tell you without doubt that my ECU did eventually negate the affects that the changing the AIT thermistors brought to the bike. It ran at an estimated 98% of what I feel a bike should run like new with the eruption mod. The ECU somehow figured out I was spoofing the temps and went back to the presets. It took a while but something changed.

 

[drzcharlie]

Well I just got back from a spirited 150 mile (241 km) ride. I had to ride hard as my wife has plans for this afternoon, ugh.

1. Anyway, continuing with my analysis of the device. It remains set as it came to me. I filled the tank and checked each time the "UG" (used gallons) meter ticked 1 gallon (US) (3.78 Liters). This was the result and it was consistent.

2. Tarmac only for this test. Speeds varied from 15mph (24 kph) in town on surface streets to 75mph (120.7 kph) on the slab. Most of my riding averaged 55 mph (88.5 kph) - 60 mph (96.5 kph) I am pleased with this result as it is 4 mpg better than I was getting prior to the installation. I used 87 Octane fuel for the test. No pinging was present even under load (I had slight pinging prior with 87 octane). Great care was given to trying to re-create the off idle stumble. I was only able to reproduce it once at 2500 rpm pulling away from a stop light purposely dogging the bike in the wrong gear. Even then it was a minor burble, not a dead engine.

3. The exhaust note is definitely throatier and rather mellow but mellow with authority if that makes sense.

4. Throttle response is exemplary compared to where I started. Smooth throttle from idle to balls to the wall. The bike seems to have great low end torque but then it did before but due to good throttle response it was infinitely more linear and predictable.

5. Idle RPM remains 100 rpm up from OEM at delivery. More importantly the hunting for proper idle has ceased, instead the idle is rock solid.

6. It is hot here today right at 90* F (32* C). The bike had developed (prior to the install) lots of lean stumbles at temps above 80* F (26.6* C). That condition is gone now.

7. The single most improved thing about the bike is throttle response. No more snatchy throttle, infinitely more linear.

8. The bike runs much smoother now and without fear of leans stumble it is much more enjoyable to ride.

 

[Quirky]

I haven't rehashed the sums Charlie. Your probably right. But hmmmmmm... I think my fuel numbers really suck. I might have to try doing a ecu reset.
BTW- I have never had any luck with that fuel consumed number. I can reset it to zero, but it doesn't even come within a bulls roar of being accurate. Stuffed if I know mate!

 

[drzcharlie]

My "UG" readings are always either spot on or .001 different. Very accurate and a great indicator. I was pleased with my miles per gallon. I expected it to go down but it was steady at 55 mpg which is about where I expect a 650 should be.

 

[Quirky]

I have just done the ecu reset thing, seemingly properly. I wonder if my ecu has been spooked by the changes and was running in some sort of limp mode. The main drawback is with the Pod Mod, the IAT rose up to 45°C before fan cut in exactly after 10minutes of idle, while it's actually only 16°C outside. Hopefully I will just have enough time to re-run the 170km loop tomorrow. AF-XIED #3 without the exhaust db killer/restricter fitted.

Must remember to sneak through town quietly and avoid being a target of the Mr Plod's.

 

[V8Astro]

I have just done the ecu reset thing, seemingly properly. I wonder if my ecu has been spooked by the changes and was running in some sort of limp mode. The main drawback is with the Pod Mod, the IAT rose up to 45°C before fan cut in exactly after 10minutes of idle, while it's actually only 16°C outside. Hopefully I will just have enough time to re-run the 170km loop tomorrow. AF-XIED #3 without the exhaust db killer/restricter fitted.

Must remember to sneak through town quietly and avoid being a target of the Mr Plod's.

Could you expand on this? I'm going to be doing the same mods soon....

 

[Baddrapp]

The IAT has nothing to do with the fan. The fan runs on the coolant temp. Why do you believe the pod mod is a detriment?

 

[drzcharlie]

I don't think the Eruption mod is doing anything other than fooling the ECU into lower ambient air temp readings. I agree with Badrapp...the fan runs with the coolant temp. It took about 15 minutes of running in 90* f heat to kick my fan on.

 

[Quirky]

Could you expand on this? I'm going to be doing the same mods soon....

Agreed, the IAT has nothing to do with the fan. Just explaining how high and how long the temp difference was. I don't usually sit around or get stuck in traffic to notice this whole event.
We can all agree that spoofing the IAT can help our engine run better (for a while at least). So what happens in my situation now that the temperature could be mechanically spoofed in the other direction? Considering especially, while trying to do this initial re-tune thing during a reset.
I reckon she'll be right and the ecu will soon adapt things well enough.

If it really matters, I don't know. But, I have chosen to leave the IAT in its usual position, my airbox has also been left open. These changes don't put the IAT sensor in the flow of freshly drawn air. So while stationary or slow going the IAT data heading to the ecu will be elevated.
My guess is a bike in it's standard form wouldn't be totally immune from this condition either.

The elevated temp difference between the ambient and the IAT sensor doesn't mean the engine is receiving ambient temperature air either. While stationary allot of the air around my filter will be sitting in some pretty warm air. So the heat coming from the engine and header pipe on the left hand side is constantly supplying the engine with hot air.

Cheers,

Q

 

[Quirky]

Done a loop this afternoon.
Restricter fitted, AF Xied setting #7 tanks full to the brim.
170km then topped the tanks off again with 9.6 litres of Caltex's finest.
17.71km/litre
At this stage, I think that previous #3 setting over all was better for both power and economy.
Pretty poor numbers for a 650 but I know how bad this number can get on setting #7 with the restricter left out with some higher speeds. 15km/litre and worse.

My current plan will be to do this same loop in another fortnight, maybe setting #3 without the restricter because I pulled the restricter on the way home and it instantly feels more exciting to ride. It could be the noise, but it seems to spin up quicker and just pull harder from low to mid RPM.

Ding Ding Ding.......Round 2
Got the next trial done, same loop, Setting #3 with resticter removed. Very windy out today, easily enough to use more fuel.
170km then add 8.36litres
20.32km/litre (47m/gal)
Pretty happy with how it went, engine braking had the exhaust popping much more prevalent. I think the engine spins up quicker and pulls pretty well. Definately was a positive move for me.

Restricter is going to be put back in, might leave it @ setting 3. This should reduce the de-accel. popping and lets see if I miss the engine grunt. Will I do the loop again? not sure yet.

 

[V8Astro]

Does the XIED help in open loop? I've been thinking about getting one more and more but don't see how it would help on a cold-start.

 

[mag00]

Does the XIED help in open loop? I've been thinking about getting one more and more but don't see how it would help on a cold-start.

The cold start stepper motor is ecu controlled. If the AFxied adjusted values are read, interpreted and stored in the ecu, it would use that adjusted value in the start mode. This is a guess on my part.

However, the stepper motor is designed to flow more or less air depending on what the ecu tells it to do. The ecu gets that info from many sensors, the O2 being one, and that is a heated sensor, which needs to warm up to work properly. So, the ecu must use a stored parameter, either the hard set from factory, or an adapted one.

This may be considered when resetting the ecu, to let engine come up to temperature to read the state of O2 at the fully warmed state.

Anyway, if it (afxied) does not help your cold start, there is a chance adjusting the butterfly stop on the TB could help. This has not been verified yet. Which way to adjust to make what change.

Quirky is using a scientific method to test settings on the AF xied.

Hey Q, are you resetting the ecu every time?

 

[drzcharlie]

If quirky isn't I am (resetting prior to using a different setting). I am on my second tank of fuel now. I am also on my second AFR setting. So far the device is very noticeable as an added feature, it can't be ignored as the engine runs differently.

My first go was ok, but not stellar, the AFR target for this run was 4%. mpg was at 55 but I still had some occasional hunting for idle and the odd lean stumble mostly when cold. the bike had crisper but better behaved throttle response (not snatchy), engine braking was more linear. Decel pop was non-existent.

Today I was on a targeted 6% richer AFR setting. The bike was very happy with this one. My butt told me the bike was smoother and better behaved. Lean stumble was minimal and was limited to the first cold start of the day. Consequent starts did not produce a lean stumble. mpg was at 52.06 which is expected. The throttle was more linear than on the 4% setting, snatchy throttle was gone completely, lean pop on decel was non-existent.

 

[Quirky]

I have only reset the ecu once ever and it was prior to yesterday's ride. I also think that this reset is a good thing to do. Just remember that I have the Staintune pipe fitted also in which changes things also.
Can't argue with Charlies comments above. Setting #7 gives great driveability, less popping on de-accel, better power. But I think for me at the moment, fuel consumption is too high. Previously the top speed improved at the leaner #3 (to windy so I could not try it yesterday).
I expect that fitting the restricter back in will lesson the popping and the mild snatchy throttle. From there I may slowly bump the AF-XIED settings upwards one at a time.

My arrangement isn't very scientific at all. One 2 hour ride is barely long enough for the ecu to adapt. I am merely trying to find a starting point to hone in on. I won't bother going below setting #3, fairly sure only negative effects would follow. Setting #7 isn't going to work for me as I simply cannot justify the near 15 percent extra fuel consumption.

Cheers,

Q